- They found that Wikipedia is significantly more biased than Britannica by this measure, and a bit more left-leaning. If the researchers had stopped there, the takeaway might have been that the wisdom of the crowd can’t be trusted, at least when it comes to politics.
People also ask
Is Wikipedia more left or Britannica?
Is wikipedia left leaning?
Is it better to edit Britannica or Wikipedia?
Is Wikipedia in Britannica?
Jan 20, 2015 · They found that in general, Wikipedia articles were more biased—with 73 percent of them containing code words, compared to just 34 percent in Britannica. In almost all cases, Wikipedia was more...
- HBS Working Knowledge
- Who Is More Objective?
- Rinsing Out Bias
- Room For Both?
But is objectivity better achieved by considering one viewpoint or thousands? Along with cowriter Shane Greenstein of Northwestern's Kellogg School of Management, Zhu asks that question in a new paper, Do Experts or Collective Intelligence Write with More Bias? Evidence from Encyclopædia Britannica and Wikipedia.Zhu and Greenstein have long been interested in the question of crowd bias, which itself has been hotly debated by scholars in many fields including psychology and politics over the c...
Perhaps the most interesting finding of Zhu and Greenstein's research is that the more times an article is revised on Wikipedia, the less bias it is likely to show—directly contradicting the theory that ideological groups might self-select over time into increasingly biased camps.\\"The data suggests that people are engaging in conversation with each other online, even though they have different points of view,\\" says Zhu. \\"The crowd does exhibit some wisdom, so to speak, to self-correct bias.\\"T...
As for Britannica, though its experts may be somewhat vindicated by Zhu and Greenstein's findings overall, the editors are still not found to be more objective than the crowd in articles that are sufficiently revised. If the company would like to stay relevant, Zhu suggests, then perhaps it should focus on niche articles on topics not likely to be adequately covered by Wikipedia editors.\\"When it comes to their capabilities, Britannica may be able to do a much better job of marketing itself as...
- Harvard Study: Wikipedia More Left-Biased Than Britannica. While both are slanted toward liberal views, the study find Wikipedia is more biased toward Democrats.
- Harvard Study: Indoctrination Pushed Harder Left and by Leftists. The same researchers above followed up their study with another one that found the most frequent editors are leftists and they are also far more biased partisans, according to their study.
- Wikipediocracy: Top News Outlets Cited Are Mostly Left-Wing. Established leftist outlets The New York Times and BBC News are the most cited sources, around 200,000 stories.
- Wikipediocracy/AllSides: U.S. Politicians Pages Rely on Left-Wing Sources. Using AllSides and Media Bias/Fact Check (MBFC) ratings, a Wikipediocracy user found stories on American politicians rely mostly on left-wing media.
They found that Wikipedia is significantly more biased than Britannica by this measure, and a bit more left-leaning. If the researchers had stopped there, the takeaway might have been that the...
- More biased than Encyclopedia Britannica. One study from Harvard Business School academics Shane Greenstein and Feng Zhu analyzed the content of Wikipedia to determine whether it showed a political bias.
- Left-wing editors more active and partisan. Greenstein and Zhu published a subsequent paper with Grace Gu using these same methods to examine individual editors and their biases.
- Top-cited news outlets mainly left-wing. Wikipedia sourcing has been the subject of critical analysis as well with one instance being looking at the top-cited outlets on the site.
- Pages on American politicians mostly cite left-wing outlets. Narrowing the review of Wikipedia sourcing, one user on Wikipediocracy specifically examined the extent to which sources were used on articles about American politicians as of July of this year.
Nov 17, 2017 · Wikipedia is readily available to all and anyone can edit or update the information, which is not possible in Britannica. Wikipedia poses as an internet encyclopedia while other encyclopedias are available as hard copies and internet sources.
Dec 16, 2005 · To Britannica officials, however, the Nature results showed that Wikipedia still has a way to go. "The (Nature) article is saying that Wikipedia has a third more errors" than Britannica, said ...
Nine years later, a working paper from Harvard Business School found that Wikipedia was more left-leaning than Britannica —mostly because the articles tended to be longer and so were likelier to...
For example, if an article contained 10 terms associated with Democrats and only three associated with Republicans, its bias score would be seven. They found that Wikipedia is significantly more biased than Britannica by this measure, and more left-leaning. 352 views